Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9566837" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is an issue of game design, isn't it?I mean, we could approach combat the same way - the story ends with A and B forever locked in combat, neither able to best the other. But no RPG that I can think of, off the top of my head, takes this approach - all of them treat combat as a site of some sort of finality in resolution.Prince Valiant is a game of relatively light-hearted Arthurian romance. It is not designed to have all dispute of precedence lingering forever unresolved. It is certainly not designed to encourage them to escalate to mortal combat. So it has a resolution framework to support some sort of finality in resolution of these disputes.I'm curious as to how often, in 5e D&D play, rivalries lead to PCs genuinely becoming enemies, or lead to one PC leaving the company.My sense is that, rather, and as per [USER=49875]@Gimby[/USER]'s post a little bit upthread, players subordinate their conception of their character in order to preserve intra-party harmony - or, alternatively, they choose to conceive of their character as valuing the party over whatever other interest has generated the conflict between the two PCs.</blockquote>